• Alice Hungerford:Today’s announcement is one of those hollow compromises that means nothing much at all has changed. Some would say half is better than none, but I say every last bit was the minimum we needed to protect. This Opportunity for Deep Restorative Change was lost.

• Christine Milne Transcript: Mining tax, budget, Tasmanian Forest Agreement, asylum seekersBut equally as the leader of the Australian Greens there is no way I can countenance the idea that the community’s freedom of speech will be curtailed - the freedom to protest, the freedom of speech to be curtailed. There is absolutely no way that you can say to the Tasmanian community if you have a protest, if you speak out about the rubble and the mess that’s been created then the Legislative Council through the special council that’s been set up can determine that reserves will not be gazetted. That just simply is unacceptable in a democracy.

... and then I heard the news that the Tas Greens would support the Bill as amended by the Leg Co - and that was pretty mind-blowing. I am so glad that Kim appears to be about to ‘cross the floor’ - only trouble is that the Opposition benches are anti-forest. Still, Kim indicated that he found various of the amendments passed by the Leg Co to be so odious as to be beyond contemplation.

I think the Greens and the Wildos, if they do support the amendments, will bring disaster on the environmental movement. Those who are called ‘activists’, and I stand with them, will never accept this. This has already been indicated, in these recent days. There was almost a chance that the activists could have somehow lived the original agreement ... but now we are left with

“a remnant ... the burnt ashes of an agreement”,

as Christine Milne has described the amended Bill.

What the hell is wrong with the state Greens? Thank goodness that at least one of them, Kim Booth, our spokesperson for matters forestry, will treat the amendments with the contempt that they so richly deserve.

Posted by Garry Stannus on 30/04/13 at 02:19 PM

(#1) You should have seen this coming years ago, Garry - it’s not as if people who DID see what was really happening didn’t try to tell you - and others like you. This is what a sell-out feels like.

Posted by Artemisia on 30/04/13 at 03:05 PM

How much of the Letter of Comfort from the Labour Government has been drawn down by Forestry Tasmania?

How much will Ta Ann recieve for giving up contracts which Forestry Tasmania cannot meet?

How much more will be paid to contractors who will continue to work?

When will we get this loss making fossil off the public purse?

If McKim backs this bill he is finished as the Forest war will reignite and the industry will never get FSC.

So:

No more Money.

Ta Ann will roll over.

Forestry Tasmania will roll over.

The Contractors are finished .

Game over.

Mulder, Hall, Green

Posted by john hawkins on 30/04/13 at 03:51 PM

Watching the Greens (video stream) agree to pay more taxdollars to the Taib Cartel from Sarawak in the form of Ta Ann seems unforgivable. How do they sleep at night?

Posted by Karl Stevens on 30/04/13 at 04:09 PM

One again shows the Tasmanian Greens for what they are (except Kim Booth).

A political party gutted of any core values or representative of the people they once claimed to represent.

Nick and Cassy will go down in political history for defending an indefensible government, indefensible ministers and being the neo-liberal pro-austerity party they have become with no backbone to stand up for the values of the party they claim to be a branch of.

When will the federal Greens distance themselves from this vehicle of the Labor party known as the Tasmanian Greens?

Bob Brown and Christine Milne must be utterly shocked by the pale shade of Green which has succeeded them in this State.

No integrity, No ideas, No Values.

“Next time I’m not voting Green”

Posted by Megan Tatham on 30/04/13 at 04:22 PM

If Kim Booth decides to stand again for Bass in 2014, I would suggest he stands as an Independent candidate and divest from a Green Party apparatus.

Mr Booth your voter appeal will be intact because of your principle and the Tasmanian Greens won’t stand anyone against you.

Think about it, please Kim.

Posted by David Obendorf on 30/04/13 at 04:48 PM

The fact that the more radical Greens and the Liberals won’t accept this deal won’t come as a shock to Tasmanians. Nor will the fact that Booth, Putt and Milne and no doubt Bob Brown have already rejected the deal even before the vote has been counted.

The victory at all costs Greens just like the no care let’s make lots of money and bugger the ethics Liberals have no desire to see peace in the forests. For these equal yet opposite winner takes all folk there is a war to be won.

Its a war to the death, no armistice, no November 11th there must be a victor who one day can be seen to stand proudly his/her heel pushing down on the rotting corpses be the corpses represented by felled trees or lost jobs and opportunities denied bugger the rest of you we won.

A Thirty year war when no prisoners were taken, thirty years when compromise was as dirty a word as traitor once was to the ears of long dead English Kings.

Our beautiful state stands close to ruin because of your intransigence, petty hatred and your refusal to compromise. A plague on both your ruinous houses.

Posted by Bazzabee on 30/04/13 at 05:02 PM

At 2pm on April 29,2010 a FT ute arrived uninvited on our property Myrtlebank.

In the ute was a very polite FT eagle expert. He advised that the adjacent land was soon to be logged and expressed complete surprise that we had not been advised of such, given that the logging access route was our only entry point to the property.

That was the last pleasant interchange that I have had with FT or the CFPO, and indeed most Members of Parliament and in particular those in the Legco.

But I now can say,with the probable passing of the TFA (albeit emasculated),and after 3 years and one day of 24/7 debate with the entities above, that the “canary in the mine” viz: Coupe BA388D, will be WHA listed.

Not a perfect outcome for all, but for selfish John the Celt, a wonderful result for the Indigenous and European Heritage values of the area.

Quamby and the Pallittorre Nation will indeed rest in peace tonight on the icy slopes overlooking the Liffey valley!

Thanks to all who assisted my personal process, and I would ask the Minister and FT/DPIPWE to reinstate the WHA sign that was at the entry to my property at 12474 Highland Lakes Road (when I bought the property in March 2010),immediately after the UNESCO accord.

And to Kim Booth, a wonderful and principled individual, a special thanks. A bottle of Liffey Valley Pinot is awaiting you sir!

Posted by john powell on 30/04/13 at 05:28 PM

This decision by the Greens and the eNGO’s has rung the death knell for a political party and groups that have emulated them all hell bent on saving face.

This decision, as predicted by many commentators on tt over the years, marks the end of an era in Tasmanian community activism and an experiment in third party politics. The Greens should just join the Labor party and have done with.

The quest for power by the Greens and the spin off of this modus operandi to the pseudo peak eNGO’s has led to this disastrous outcome.

The eNGO’s and the Greens have no entitlement to represent the social justice and environment movement - anyone who thinks they do is flogging a dead horse.

Posted by Isla MacGregor on 30/04/13 at 05:33 PM

Some of the commentators here that I would normally disagree with, I find myself agreeing with, perhaps for different reasons but never the less there appears to be a concensus of disgust.

The Greens/ Bob Annells-FT/FSC support for Ta Ann is the one that I find hard to digest, it cant be true???

I am sorry for the Special Timbers sector, I do suspect there will be Balkans style war over the resource.

Posted by Robin Halton on 30/04/13 at 05:57 PM

We can now thank the McGreens for as black a satire on political venality that could be imagined.

For those who didn’t sell out for the LC’s bag of magic beans, there’s now the task of warning FSC that any collusion with these scoundrels will be broadcast around the world.

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 30/04/13 at 06:24 PM

I cannot believe the state greens would go for this, So that’s it, I now have not one scrap of faith in this process, You there in your ivory towers, lining the pockets of your corporate pals and shoddy contractors, you do not speak for us. To give credit and respectability to the laughing stock that passes for democracy in our state,
Shame.

Posted by Simon mahon on 30/04/13 at 06:52 PM

Re 5, Dioxin, Anyone?

It was writ large two years ago.

Posted by Simon Warriner on 30/04/13 at 07:14 PM

#2 & #4 You’re both dead right. More’s the pity that Kim Booth didn’t listen to a few people outside the tent a few years earlier, but he didn’t. He should have listened to Bob McMahon, Frank Strie, Peter Brenner, David Obendorf and a few others. Instead, he told them to pull their heads in. He can afford to cross the floor now, when it’s all too late, because his vote won’t affect the outcome.

Maybe there’s a lesson here for all those who followed the Green-ENGO mantra all through this process of “compromise” as the supreme virtue - including compromise of due process, compromise of democratic participation, compromise of transparency, compromise of basic principles in relation to forestry practices (ie everything that’s wrong with current practice is okay as long as its in a smaller paddock), and now, compromise of the right to protest.

Similarly, it’s a bit of a joke that Christine Milne - and Bob Brown - have given their imprimatur to this undemocratic charade over the last three years. They thought it was all okay to have an exclusivist group writing public policy as long as they thought they would be on the winning team, but now that that is no longer the case they raise their own concerns of “undemocratic” elements in the legislation.

The fact is that those “undemocratic” elements have been part of the discussion about “durability” for months. It’s not new. They only raise these matters now because it is politically expedient to do so in order to reinforce their other objections to the Leg Council amendments.

As for the Labor Party, they are a disgrace to the body politic. They are worse than the Liberal Party because they espouse concern for matters of social justice in terms of civilising capitalism, but they do exactly the opposite in practice, embracing with fervour the likes of Ta Ann. They deserve the contempt of any citizen interested in human rights for that alone.

The Liberals are beyond contempt, but at least they don’t hide behind a facade hiding their commitment to transferring wealth from the bottom to the top, keeping wages low, keeping profits in the hands of institutional investors and subsidising the big end of town.

It’s been a fascinating ride from 2006 to 2013, and the lessons are clear cut. Have the courage to think for yourself rather than following a direction made by others, in some party apparatus. Surely that’s the least you can do if you claim to be democratic. Isn’t it?

Posted by Peter Henning on 30/04/13 at 07:31 PM

So the loggers get their money and the Greens get nothing. Yet again. What a surprise.

Posted by Big Sim on 30/04/13 at 07:58 PM

Thanks anyway Kim. One Green left with some integrity. I believe that Nick McKim and Cassie could have done more OUTSIDE parliament as true Greens than they have done from the inside. I hope I am wrong. Nick used to be such a strong voice whenever it was needed. The silence now is awful.

Posted by heather donaldson on 30/04/13 at 08:15 PM

So who’s voting for Wendy Heatley?

Re #5

“When will the federal Greens distance themselves from this vehicle of the Labor party known as the Tasmanian Greens?

Bob Brown and Christine Milne must be utterly shocked by the pale shade of Green which has succeeded them in this State…”

Posted by James on 30/04/13 at 08:45 PM

As mentioned by me in a recent comment on Tasmanian Times, both Cass and McKim have comfortably adapted themselves to a lifestyle of privilege and comfort and with all the associated perks.
The writing was on the wall way back then, however an enormous thanks to Kim Booth and Christine Milne for displaying their integrity, (albeit a green one) I have to say bon voyage now to the ‘Greens Party traitorous cuddly couple’ that can be safely regarded as now to forever dwell in the same pack as those other anti-the-people Tasmanian government ministers.

Posted by William Boeder on 30/04/13 at 09:21 PM

Thank you Peter Henning 100% + 10% or more!!!
The day’s discussion was there to see how typical ‘cunning island’ was playing it out.
The whole issue will unfold when we get to the details of this deal.
The post LegCo arrangements between Minister Green and the ENGO signatories look as the catch is to be found in the “small print”.
What did we / the world market expect?
“Explore The Opportunities” - Paul Lennon’s catch- cry.
Amazing how Kim, Cassy, Paul and Tim are so supportive of the TA ANN construct,- Evan will be all smiles, huggs and kisses.
Sadly, the Liberal Party has nothing responsible on offer either, they just sound angry and Onkel Erich is still in charge against FSC.
What will it take?
Even more time - I suppose

PS: Kim Booth was right about the unreal outlook of declare National Park status and then cunningly / quietly plan a logging agenda for special species customers with deep pockets.
That is not in the spirit of FSC, nor is the monoculture plantation agenda of some other dreamers on offer.

Posted by Frank Strie, FWM on 30/04/13 at 09:27 PM

Now that we know how things stand, the most important task is to unite around opposition to this charade.

We must never accept the ban on protests, the existence of monoculture plantations, the refusal to adopt whole-of-catchment management, the practice of industrial-scale clearfelling, the use of Tasmanian forests for paper production and the still-on-the-table Tamar Valley pulp mill.

Above all, we must resist the perversion of Tasmania’s once proud timber industry into a vehicle for the transfer of money from ordinary Tasmanians and their government to the shareholders of the banks.

If you doubt the relevance of the last point, ask yourself where the money given to Gunns has ended up.

Posted by Tim Thorne on 30/04/13 at 09:33 PM

If anyone heard Senator Christine Milne on Louise Saunders ABC-936 Drive program you would know the lady is furious with this capitulation by the ENGOs and her 4 Tasmanian Greens MPs.

There was no champagne corks popping in the Parliament at around 7 pm tonight when this lack-lustre amended TFA Bill passed with a underwhelming whimper. No party time in the public gallery and no drums banging and fire twirlers from the front-line forest protectors on the Parliament Lawns on this balmy April night.

What a divisive outcome for the Tasmanian Greens to allow themselves to cave in to a deal that Mr McKim described was a “manifestly imperfect Bill”.

What an anti-climax… the industry and their supporters got what they wanted and as Senator Milne summed up, the Bill might have passed but the forest agreement is dead and in ashes.

There was only the ENGO way and their negotiators Vica Bayley and Phill Pullinger kept on telling us for three years! - “There is no Plan B”.

Posted by David Obendorf on 30/04/13 at 09:55 PM

The McGreens, McKim and O’Connor, are traitorous history come the next election.

The same demise will spread to the non-representative UNGOs.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 30/04/13 at 10:50 PM

Lite-Green politicians and a version of FSC-Lite are on the cards.

Tasmania’s Explore the Opportunities logo and the newest spit-in-the-face from the Tasmania Inc. brigade - Look behind the scenery - are an abject lesson in how absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Posted by David Obendorf on 01/05/13 at 08:22 AM

I was thinking, ‘thank christ it’s over’, then heard Paul Harriss talking on ABC Mornings to Leon (today 1/5/13)re specialty timbers and Adriana Taylor’s amendments.
From that its clear its all likely ‘to be on again!‘before its even Legislated. Give us strength!! Basil

Posted by Basil Fitch on 01/05/13 at 09:27 AM

I find Christine’s message very powerful , but I can also see why Nick would back the bill. After all, it was a matter of conserving some forest or getting none at all. But the game changer surely is that requiring FSC, which the industry and FT themselves wanted, will ensure that forestry operations will be much improved, and more forests than before are protected.

True, it puts responsibility for seeking FSC and for honouring obligations not to log marked reserved before 2014 onto FT, and we all know how honourable FT is, but it is FT’s self interest to do the decent. The market doesn’t want timber that isn’t FSC-protected. So if Will Hodgman rips up the agreement as he crassly promised, it will kill the industry completely.

The original FTA was mininally supportable and this is worse. But it is better than nothing. It must mean a large decrease in clear felling old growth and that in itself is a major move ahead from present practice. And it means more protected forest, however you look at it. That has to be good. It also must mean more reliance on plantations, which is not good. But that done with carefully selected species, and no monocultures, is going to be an improvement on the past.

One thing that Nick McKim should have insisted on but surprisingly didn’t was the issue of banning protests. That is not only unforgivable but surely unconstitutional. The right to protest is basic: you can’t withhold it on particular issues. I get more and more disgusted at this as I write. Did he and Cassy just go to sleep at that point in the debate?

Posted by John Biggs on 01/05/13 at 02:07 PM

John (#25), Will Hodgman doesn’t care whether the industry survives or not. All he is concerned about is getting the Liberals elected and the best way of doing that is to promise that the status quo ante will be restored, that the rest of the world will rush to buy as many trees as we can log, especially if we first turn then into pulp in the Tamar Valley.

It is of no importance whatsoever that this is sheer fantasy and completely in contradiction to the factual situation. This is about two things: getting a Liberal government elected, and transferring as much wealth as possible into the hands of our corporate masters. The rest is mere sideshow.

Posted by Tim Thorne on 01/05/13 at 02:33 PM

John Biggs, none of these TFTA amendments were debated yesterday in the House of Assembly at Committ stage level… none of them. Tasmanian Greens MPs, McKim and O’Connor just did not engage in the specifics of any of these amendments and certainly not on the durability clauses related to forest protests or market action that you refer to. If you read the Hansard it will show how these many amendments were bunched together and then voted en masse ... no detailed debate on line items John… none. Nothing was touched in the Legislative Council amended TFA Bill.

As for the assurances given by FT Minister, Bryan Green to the ENGOs in the lead up to yesterday’s Signatory decision to back the amended Bill, Mr Bob Annells’ statement to the media on Monday 29 April is incompatible with the spirit and the intent of the amended and now passed FTA Act and Mr Annells would know that he cannot provide those sorts of assurances to the ENGOs.

As for FSC certification John… FT will have to radicallly change - i.e. root and branch reform - to begin to satisfy this certification process. That maybe ‘Mission Impossible’ for FT, John.

Posted by David Obendorf on 01/05/13 at 02:50 PM

#25 It is seriously questionable whether something is better than nothing - when being agreeable to compromise is a better look - when it will eventually come to nothing!

Consorting with the masters for short term gain - who the eNGO/Greens?

Posted by Emma Goldman on 01/05/13 at 04:55 PM

Yes I agree that the LCs are all out to get the Liberals elected, but I’m hoping like mad that this will backfire, given the complexities that I am sure they have not fully appreciated. There are so many unknowables in all this. However one needs to take a punt one way or the other. I must say that the motivation of the ENGO negotiaters over three exhausting years for trying to save the forests and clean up the industry dedication has to be commended whatever you think of the outcome.

One bad outcome seems certain that Peg Putt rather harshly outlined: the Greens and ENGOs have been fatally split. What a gift for the two major parties!

Posted by John Biggs on 01/05/13 at 05:37 PM

John (#29), what Peg observed has been a reality for at least three years, ever since the publication of the sell-out Statement of Principles.

When the Greens made the decision to join a Labor government the foundations for this were laid.

We are now to have a plantation-based industry, with Tasmanian trees contributing to climate change via paper pulp while we import timber from places with much worse forestry practices. The chance of a partly taxpayer funded Tamar Valley pulp mill have just improved. We are banned from protesting against the malpractices of FT and their cronies such as Ta Ann and not a single tree has been saved.

Where is the upside?

Posted by Tim Thorne on 01/05/13 at 08:22 PM

There is an exquisite twist in the LegCo’s attempt to scuttle the Forest Deal. It is game changing and most people are missing it, as it would seem did they! The industry want and must have Forest Stewardship Council certification, but to get it, the trees must be standing! If they log, they lose it. So by default the projected reserves will be protected! It is does not mater what Party is in power either; if they log the trees, they lose the certification. There will be an ongoing role to police this.

Posted by Elizabeth Perey on 02/05/13 at 08:28 AM

FSC certification may well be dumped (under Abbott and Hodgman governments) as a Mission Impossible standard for native forest harvesting in Tasmania as China will accept lesser certification grade Tasmanian timber into its domstic market under a totalitarian and highly centralised governance.

#30. Yes in my book I forecast a split in the Greens after the 2010 elections when McKim and O’Connor joined cabinet, very likely over forestry issues, as has happened. There are now two issues (at least) to address:

1. The substance of the TFA. Given that ENGOs wanted to preserve as much old growth as possible and the industry wanted to cut down as much as possible, there had to be compromise on all sides, otherwise it was business as usual until the industry imploded, which it was starting to do, hence the push for industry to get some sort of agreement. As Rob Blakers as argued in another post http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/why-we-voted-for-the-bill/show_comments Comment 21, the present outcome is better than the alternative. As for increased use of plantations that is a battle to be fought when the time comes, likewise banning protest. McKim shouldnlt have let that last one pass.

2. Post-Green politics. Agreed, there has always been a fault line in the Greens: essentially the Franklin and Pedder veterans with a narrow environmental agenda compared to other issues, and those with a left political agenda to replace the hole now that Labor has swung sharply to the right. Both have great contributions to make—but can that be done within the one party? I hope so, at least within our present system, for fragmenting the left vote can only benefit the right. There are better ways, with many groups sitting around the governmental table, but that won’t be within my lifetime.

Posted by John Biggs on 02/05/13 at 09:49 AM

Looks likes many are still in denial of the fact it’s the contagious psychological disease called ideology which is control, not real people, surely this event is as much evidence as is needed and should be the last nail in the coffin.

Ideologists have no say in what they do, as programmed clones they are directed and controlled by their obsession with egocentric psychopathic fantasies. In the beginning, they give the impression of being together with their semantic babble, but when given any form of power, their programming takes over and sanity, logic and rationale go out the window.

As long as we continue with our current political system and keep the people from having a real say in governance, nothing will change, only get worse and worse daily. Until the entire system collapses and chaos take over.

We have a quickly diminishing choice, get rid of the entire political system in Tas and set up a referendum style government the people really control, or go down the drain with the blind fools. There are no other options, none at all, Libs just as insane, put them in and the place will collapse just as quick, as they clear fell and mine the entire island into a cesspool of polluted oblivion.

Posted by A.K. on 02/05/13 at 10:58 AM

#14 “...and the lessons are clear cut. Have the courage to think for yourself rather than following a direction made by others, in some party apparatus. Surely that’s the least you can do if you claim to be democratic. Isn’t it?”

Some of the best words ever written on the TT.

If Tasmanians had the courage and grit the state could become a world leader in participatory democracy. It is well placed to do so as an island with a small and connected population. There are many many people of integrity in Tasmania (of all manner of belief and politics) and should the community allow them to rise and support them as independents with a reform agenda the mainland would tremble, then follow. There is no other state with sufficient capacity and reason to see that this is needed. Should Tasmanians not see that now is the hour, then I’m afraid, the party system will never reform and mediocrity shall be our troth as a nation. If you want a revolution in the way we are governed, it must start in Tasmania. It can’t in any other state.

Posted by Jack on 02/05/13 at 01:15 PM

John Biggs, David Obendorf and others:

The reason Nick, Lara and anyone else did not attempt to modify any of the LegCo amendments was clearly that had they done so the Bill would have had to go back to the Council again.

In which case it would either have re-emerged with the conservation picture looking even worse - a certainty Nick would have taken into account - or been killed off completely. Ms Giddings I imagine was rather keen to get something in the bag well before the election after staking her Party’s credibility on this process for so long.

And the ENGOs, having already been dealt what has been described as a “shit sandwich” by the LegCo, could not afford to be dealt a double helping either. Better that they try to get a few undertakings out of the government to improve what they could.

That is the realpolitik of the situation. It is very unfortunate, but no one in this world has the luxury of being a politician with any effect whatever and a pure idealist at the same time.

John #25, neither this Act nor any other bans protests. All they can do is attach a penalty to it. In my day I copped a $7000 fine for it and a friend was jailed for 33 days. In the TFA case the penalties are not personal, they are a blackmail to try to minimise protest by threatening not to create reserves.

Disgusting - yes. Even though the MLC who introduced might have been well meaning. But something Nick, Cassy, Christine or Kim could improve? No. It is just a part of the shit sandwich we are compelled to consume as our entrée.

Let’s keep hoping the main course is more appealing.

Posted by Neil Smith on 02/05/13 at 08:17 PM

The bit that still I find too difficult to get my head around is that Nick McKim, Cassie O’Connor, Tim Morris and Paul O’Halloran voted contrary to their spokesperson for forestry matters, Kim Booth.

I’m not as such, seeking to criticise these four, and I’ll vote for Tim again, as I have done before. My vote does count and I’d rather see it go to him before MHAs Hidding, Polley, Shelton or … White(?). I don’t want to live in a society dominated by economic rationalism, and by an ethic of exploitation and consumerism. I want respect for our environment and desire for social justice to be the ‘order of the day’.

Kim is the (Greens) party spokesperson for forestry et alia. With regard to his performance in this role, I rate him as a high achiever. I don’t view politicians as if they are, by definition, corrupt. I see them as, at worst, reflections of ourselves, and, at best, as people who enter politics to work hard for the common good. Admittedly, the dominance of our parliaments by political parties, while delivering some benefits, comes at a cost. We citizens become further removed from real representation. And yet I don’t believe there is corruption under every political bed, albeit blue, green or red.

I see that, as I’m composing this comment, an article by Richard Flanagan has popped up onto TT. It is accompanied by the message from the Editor that “comments are not being taken on this article”. That is a pity, because it looks interesting and I can see a couple of matters that in the normal course of events, I’d have commented on.

Mr Editor, I move, with regard to your “comments are not being taken on this article”, that the word “yet” be inserted between the words “not” and “being”.

Posted by Garry Stannus on 03/05/13 at 12:19 PM

Neil Smith here.

In my comment #36 I suggested that the MLC who moved the amendment about “substantial active protest or substantial market disruption” might have been “well meaning”. Wrong, baby.

In a lapse of recall and common sense I was assigning this to Adriana Taylor. It was of course Tony Mulder.

Ms Taylor I feel may have been substantially well meaning. Having become convinced that increased supplies of special species timbers were needed to keep that sector viable she sought to open up “almost the whole of the forest estate” (Hansard, Tuesday 16 April 2013, Part 3). And she put forward some very strange ideas, such as “there is no reason to have well-made, wide roads”, as a possible sop to environmentalists. As if!

Her serious error was not to recognise the enormity of the contradiction between a conditional opening-up and the process of creating reserves at all.

The true author of the “protest” amendment, Tony Mulder, has still not denied his reported statement that his intention was to ‘get some fed dollars’, ‘watch the deal fall over’ and to put the reserves ‘to the sword’. In all the circumstances, I can’t see that he deserves anything but contempt.

As for the amendment of Greg Hall, relating to the Great Western Tiers, I’m not at all sure that he was entitled to put an amendment at all. The usual reason for moving an amendment is to improve a proposition to the point where the mover can vote in favour of it. That was the case with Taylor, and it was the case with Mulder.

Hall, on the other hand, had repeatedly stated his intention to vote the Bill down regardless, which is what he ultimately tried to do. By his amendment he was simply trying to have two bob each way - if he couldn’t kill the whole thing he thought he might be able to make it, in his view, less bad.

I’m not at all sure that this isn’t a flouting of Westminster conventions, and I’d be keen to see the opinion of constitutional experts on this point. From a moral point of view it would seem that a member who had repeatedly sworn in advance to vote “no” - effectively promising to close his ears to the opinions of all his fellows, should hardly be permitted to speak at all. It’s nothing to do with the odious Party caucus system (which, by the way, the Greens effectively repudiated when Kim Booth voted against the other four). The Hall event occurred in a purportedly “independent” chamber of review!

The same goes for Harriss. With a so-called “gentleman’s agreement” to pair with Ruth Forrest, who was absent and had no opportunity to contribute to the debate at all, he assumed for himself a hell of a lot of airtime.

Ah, democracy!

Posted by Neil Smith on 03/05/13 at 05:47 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.